Bob53 said:
on the other hand there are others that only post positive Ukrainian information and narrative.
I'm one of them.
KipPotapych said:
f you read the part of my post you quoted, I am arguing that the Americans must have known of the existence of the missiles, as opposed to “Surprise! We sank the biggest Russian ship all by ourselves with the missiles you had no idea we had!
Even better than that: The existence of the Neptune was of public notoriety long before the strike on the Moskva.
It was rather the inability of the Moskva to protect itself that surprised everyone. In fact it was a combined attack with drones and anti-ship missiles.
KipPotapych said:
The argument was that it is irrational to waste the equipment as they did (still do) because they fully, 100%, depend on the western supplies of that equipment.
It's irrational no matter is the case.
My counter argument is that for Ukrainians (and for Russians as well), it's not a waste. The equipment is delivered to be used to counter the Russian invasion. Not to stay in the rear to be preserved at any cost. Sometimes their decisions like invading Kursk may seems to you not logical, and then you think that what they lose there is a waste, but they have their own logic. And they don;t think that they have wasted anything. Of course Ukrainians can make mistakes. But it's difficult to judge from the outside. After all, equipment is destroyed by the enemy in the first place.
KipPotapych said:
Were they really needed though? It was the rocket-man who offered the troops, according to the Americans, Putin didn’t ask for them.
The key point is:
though President Vladimir V. Putin quickly embraced it.
It still breached the barrier of the unthinkable.
KipPotapych said:
To hit a bridge with cluster munitions would be an even more asinine idea. Especially the bridge that is primarily used by civilians.
Cluster ammunition doesn't mean anti-personel ammunition, thought it's often the case. ATACMS cluster ammunitions are small bombs exploding on a wide area. We have seen several videos of them, one hitting an helicopter field. The explosion is able to dammage a bridge structure, thought several explosion are needed to collapse it.
"Primarily used by civilians": No such a thing in time of war. Every road or bridge are supposed to be used by the military, especially this one. Civilians can still use them at their own risk. The main crime is to fail to inform the public about the risk, for example by recommending not to travel neither by road or by boat to Crimea unless absolutely necessary. But the Russian media, instead, keep on saying that everything is all right as usual.
swerve said:
The bridge is a very large fixed construction. Why would the Ukrainians need coordinates?
Good point. But I mean, the American are able to deny the launch of the ATACMS if they disagree with the strike even when Ukrainians have the coordinates.
KipPotapych said:
That’s another “strange” part of the story. They say they knew it would not be successful, but let Ukraine proceed to prove the point.
I didn't say the Americans let the Ukrainians fail to prove the point. I said that the American also believed that it will be successful, IMO.
KipPotapych said:
In the Newsweek article, it is likely a typo - they probably meant to say “illegally”.
No: Newsweek quoted TASS Agency, whereas Kiyev Post quoted Ukrinform.
KipPotapych said:
Zaluzhny was fired in spite of him being against the direction chosen in 2023. He also was on record (quoted here by me) being against the Kursk offensive. Other officers have been dismissed (cited here by me) for their refusal to participate in or initiate the Kursk offensive. With my bias, which I fully accept, the article, combined with what I just wrote, makes it very clear that decisions are being made for political reasons and showtime.
The reason why he was dismissed is not clear. Certainly opposing the plan was one factor among others. Not the only one. I think that political ambitions was a more important factor, and at some point, the friction between the two men became unbearable. I think that Zaluhzny was also fed up.
The reason for dismissing other generals is not that they disagree with the
Commander in Chief. But because they failed in their mission or because someone else is better for the job. The rest is speculation.
Zelensky or not Zelensky, a political leader who take utterly bad decisions in war time is not going to keep power. There is enough political opposition against Zelensky to rise the question of his legitimqcy if he would jeopardize the defence of Ukraine. Instead the opposition stands by Zelensky when his legitimacy is questioned by external leaders.
KipPotapych said:
But they also follow orders, which they don’t have to agree with.
A general would rather resign than following a devastatingly stupid order from a civilian. Several generals would also object to a bad order given to one of their colleague. And the order will not be fully obeyed.
KipPotapych said:
Trump can’t pledge anything. That’s not how things work in the US. Assuming he could, I don’t think be would. In my opinion, he is ready for Ukriane to drown and go away. I do not believe there will be some major help from the US going forward.
It depends on what Putin does. If Putin doesn't order a ceasefire, Trump will arm Ukraine to the teeth because he doesn't like to be contradicted.
However if Putin agrees to a ceasefire and his troops really stop firing, Ukrainians will be forced to stop fighting too. Then, in this case, Trump could drop economic, diplomatic and military aid to Ukraine, and renew good relations with his old friend Vladimir.
By all evidences, the friend Vladimir doesn't want to play this card.
I said:
But on the Russian side, the contrast is much more severe. A large part of new recruits are inapt to combat and sometimes to even carry a weapon.
You said:
This is rather funny because you are basically parroting the guy whose article I called “utter garbage” the other day.
This is confirmed by every single intervew of Ukrainian or foreign soldiers fighting in Ukraine. Also confirmed by indirect off-line informations from people on the front line.
I said:
So, IMO, the odds of seeing another counter offensive in 2025 is only 20%. But not zero.
You said:
Because I applied a very complex formula to reach this exact number. LOL
You said:
Today it is likely West + Ukraine - USA > Russia. An enormous change just like that.
West + Ukraine - USA is still several time Russia in militaro-imdustrial potential.
It's just that the European potential is not used.
united24media.com
